Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[AnonymousBob]

So let me get this straight: you're OK with skipping the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and thus contributing to the increased possibility of rollback of abortion rights, gay rights, the voting rights act, and any number of other things that might occur if someone like Ted Cruz gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices, not to mention the cancellation of the Clean Power Plan and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not to mention countless other clear policy issues on which Clinton is more progressive than Cruz or Trump.

And the straw that broke the camel's back for you is that, according to a TV reporter who posted less-than-clear audio and video on Twitter, Clinton decided to have one of her fundraisers outdoors instead of behind closed doors and thus enforced the standard "no media" policy for such events embraced by virtually every politician who has ever had one via a static noise machine as a replacement for walls?

Is that accurate?

You can not vote for someone and not skip the general election. HTH.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you believe that LBJ was a transparent  President? Are you serious? 

No, he wasn't, but not nearly as bad as Nixon and FOIA was the biggest achievement in the history of government transparency. It led to model laws in all 50 states and even other nations, it was a big deal. I think we are going to have a hard time finding a president who was a model of transparency though. I appreciate Obama for making it a feature of his 2008 campaign. However even he has agencies which have regularly fought basic requests and denied them without reason. I do think the responses are improving though because of the courts and a generally slowly growing public awareness.

 

[squistion]

Thank you missed the point of his rhetoric.  He was saying if she wanted to suggest he's unqualified, then he could just as easily turn it around.  I don't think either has actually suggested sincerely that the other is unqualified.

Bernie stated it categorically, that went beyond a suggestion, which is why he is now backtracking.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Those typical flip-flopping politicians.

Wall Street JournalVerified account ‏@WSJ 22m22 minutes ago

In reversal, Bernie Sanders says "of course" Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president http://on.wsj.com/1WhMhSY

They are both toning it down, it would behoove Hillary to keep a polite tone though.

 

[RCon]

In your opinion, who was the most transparent President in recent times, and how did that transparency contribute to our prosperity? 

I don't think any of them have been very transparent.  I was encouraged by Obama's promise to be transparent, but discouraged by his actual actions on that front.  I think Hillary would be the worst of the bunch in this regard.  With virtually every action she takes, she seems to have no regard for the public's right to know.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You can not vote for someone and not skip the general election. HTH.

Not sure I understand. If you don't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee and you live in a swing state, you're contributing to the likelihood of a Cruz and Trump presidency.

Maybe you and I are neighbors in DC and we can vote or not vote our conscience knowing that your electoral votes have already been won.  But if you live in Ohio or Florida or Nevada?  You've got a chance to help stop those guys, and the only explanation I can think of for not doing so is that you think whatever it is that concerns you about Clinton (and I share some of those concerns) are more important than things like gay rights, abortion rights, protection of the environment/addressing climate change, continuing to provide health insurance for the poor, etc.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Not sure I understand. If you don't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee and you live in a swing state, you're contributing to the likelihood of a Cruz and Trump presidency.

Maybe you and I are neighbors in DC and we can vote or not vote our conscience knowing that your electoral votes have already been won.  But if you live in Ohio or Florida or Nevada?  You've got a chance to help stop those guys, and the only explanation I can think of for not doing so is that you think whatever it is that concerns you about Clinton (and I share some of those concerns) are more important than things like gay rights, abortion rights, protection of the environment/addressing climate change, continuing to provide health insurance for the poor, etc.

Good thing I live in neither Ohio or Florida or Nevada.

And even if I did, DNC supporters shouldn't be upset with me for not voting their way if they throw out a candidate that doesn't appeal to me as a voter. I don't owe anyone or any group my vote just because the alternatives are lousy. I completely understand if you and other voters are interested in voting against someone just as much as voting for someone. That's fine for you. I don't share those valuations. DNC wants my vote? Give me a candidate that appeals to me. That's not Hillary. Obviously if she wins they believe overall they'll gain more votes than they're losing. Totally okay. No candidate appeals to every voter. I'll just be one of those who votes in another direction.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Guccifer.
> Has Arrived.

Hacker 'Guccifer' extradited from Romania, appears in U.S. court


A Romanian hacker known as "Guccifer" who posted unofficial emails sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Internet was extradited from Romania and made his first court appearance in the United States on Friday.

Marcel Lehel, 44, is charged in a nine-count indictment that includes three counts of gaining unauthorized access to protected computers, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-guccifer-idUSKCN0WY5MK

- The arrival date of Lehel/Lazar (Guccifer) had not been previously reported so this is a bit of a surprise.

 

[Henry Ford]

Guccifer.
> Has Arrived.


 


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-guccifer-idUSKCN0WY5MK

- The arrival date of Lazar (Guccifer) had not been previously reported so this is a bit of a surprise.

Whoah.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just a follow up on the extradition of Guccifer, aka Lazar or Lehel, to the US. This is an interesting interview with him from back in the day, March 2015. Lots of chunky stuff in there, but he claims to have hacked Hillary.

Quote
Back in the Arad penitentiary, I ask Lehel about his heyday. Was it worth it? “I had memos Hillary Clinton got as a State Secretary, with CIA briefings. These were being read by her, two other people from the US Government, and Guccifer. I used to read her memos for six-seven hours and then I’d get up and do the gardening in the yard,” he says.

https://pando.com/2015/03/20/exclusive-interview-jailed-hacker-guccifer-boasts-i-used-to-read-hillarys-memos-for-six-seven-hours-and-then-do-the-gardening/

So, maybe that's false.

But he's coming here for trial.

- Well, I'm sure it's false.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Good thing I live in neither Ohio or Florida or Nevada.

And even if I did, DNC supporters shouldn't be upset with me for not voting their way if they throw out a candidate that doesn't appeal to me as a voter. I don't owe anyone or any group my vote just because the alternatives are lousy. I completely understand if you and other voters are interested in voting against someone just as much as voting for someone. That's fine for you. I don't share those valuations. DNC wants my vote? Give me a candidate that appeals to me. That's not Hillary. Obviously if she wins they believe overall they'll gain more votes than they're losing. Totally okay. No candidate appeals to every voter. I'll just be one of those who votes in another direction.

All of this makes perfect sense to me ... but the unavoidable fact is that every vote amounts to a cost/benefit decision.  You are making the determination that slightly increasing the likelihood of a Trump or Cruz presidency -something I assume you consider a cost- outweighs the benefit you get from voting for someone who appeals to you more than Clinton, assuming she is the Dem candidate.

Maybe you live in a place that shifts the calculation, like say DC or Connecticut (or Oklahoma or North Dakota), where you can rest assured that your decision, or even 1,000 people making the same decision, has no cost. In which case, great, God bless. But in a swing state?  Given the historical awfulness of the GOP candidates, I think swing state voters need to consider that cost/benefit carefully. Just my opinion of course, but I really don't see how people who tend be liberal or progressive and thus would side with Clinton over Trump/Cruz on a long list of important issues could disagree.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Friday Music.

Have no idea what made me think of that.

French Quarter Fest is today so I guess I just thought I'd get started early.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also, this is a great show,

... Again, no idea what made me think of that. Off topic I guess.

 

[Guest]

www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/clinton-email-server-indictment-fbi-221710

Hillary still maintaining despite facts that FBI is conducting a routine security review, and that there isn't a remote chance of indictment.  What else is she going to do, though.  If it happens she's finished, so no downside to such a binary approach.  But clearly it is untethered from reality. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/clinton-email-server-indictment-fbi-221710

Hillary still maintaining despite facts that FBI is conducting a routine security review, and that there isn't a remote chance of indictment.  What else is she going to do, though.  If it happens she's finished, so no downside to such a binary approach.  But clearly it is untethered from reality. 

“We’re certainly gonna carry on,” she said of her campaign. “I think — it’s a security review. It’s a security review, and there are lots of those that are conducted in our government all the time, and you don’t hear about most of them. You’ll hear about this one because it does involve me, so that’s why it gets so much attention.”

Whereupon, Matt Lauer said, "Can you give us an example?"

No? He didn't ask that? Surprised he's usually so thorough.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

These are all terrible options.  Truly. 

Clinton is the one least likely to set America back IMO.  I wish she was not running, as that probably would have opened the door for better alternatives to Sanders.  He is a voice and opinion that we need to hear to be a check and balance, but he has no business setting foot in the White House.  Trump and Cruz would be much worse.  Kasich just does not have "it" and seems almost like a local politician at times. 

 

[squistion]

Whereupon, Matt Lauer said, "Can you give us an example?"

No? He didn't ask that? Surprised he's usually so thorough.

So you would expect for him to ask and for her to give names of people investigated that were never publicized? Like that wouldn't open up a can of worms for each person named?

 

[Guest]

Whereupon, Matt Lauer said, "Can you give us an example?"

No? He didn't ask that? Surprised he's usually so thorough.

I mean seriously, no follow up?!!!  Not even, "There are indications that this is a criminal investigation.  Are you aware of information regarding the case that the American People are not?"

 

[Gr00vus]

Bernie stated it categorically, that went beyond a suggestion, which is why he is now backtracking.

No he didn't. There was a gigantic series of if clauses that followed his initial statement.

 

[squistion]

No he didn't. There was a gigantic series of if clauses that followed his initial statement.

Well, gee, if it was that clear, then I guess he backtracked for nothing.

 

[Gr00vus]

Well, gee, if it was that clear, then I guess he backtracked for nothing.

He backtracked so that if/when the Democrats #### up and make her the nominee, at least he won't be responsible for putting tons more ammo out there to sink her with. Anyway, regarding "categorically" - well, not so much. But, if all those if clauses are striking a little too close to home - maybe she really isn't qualified? Sorry her campaign's disqualification candy gram backfired.

 

[skol asylum]

I mean seriously, no follow up?!!!  Not even, "There are indications that this is a criminal investigation.  Are you aware of information regarding the case that the American People are not?"

He didn't follow up because he was afraid of hearing the cackle she breaks out when pressed.

 

[Guest]

AP Poll says 55% dislike Clinton.  Last I heard 40% of the country are Republicans.

...but no one should feel she was forced on us.  No one.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-gfk-poll-dislike-clinton-disdain-trump-38254423

Edit:. Yes, Trump is 69% unfavorable.  So in our "representative" government, both front runners are not who the People would have chosen.

 

[squistion]

He backtracked so that if/when the Democrats #### up and make her the nominee, at least he won't be responsible for putting tons more ammo out there to sink her with. Anyway, regarding "categorically" - well, not so much. But, if all those if clauses are striking a little too close to home - maybe she really isn't qualified? Sorry her campaign's disqualification candy gram backfired.

That is rather disingenuous, so Sanders misspoke suggesting she didn't do all the things he claims below that wouldn't make her qualified?
 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-qualified/477294/

I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds.

I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq.

I don’t think you’re qualified if you supported almost every disastrous trade agreement.

If she did X, I don't think she is qualified, means he thinks she is unqualified is she indeed did X. Not too many other ways to interpret it, and that is he why he backtracked. And the ammo is already out there - the partial first line of quote bolded above will be in GOP attack ads in the fall. Big mistake on his part, he stepped in it, realizes it and is now trying fix things, but the damage may already be done.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Those typical flip-flopping politicians.

Wall Street JournalVerified account ‏@WSJ 22m22 minutes ago

In reversal, Bernie Sanders says "of course" Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president http://on.wsj.com/1WhMhSY

When Hillary was asked the same question about Bernie, she could have easily just responded similarly: "Of course Senator Sanders is qualified, but I'm the better candidate because . . . "   Instead she tried to get cute about it.  Bet she regrets that now.  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

They both backtracked.  It was a silly spat to begin with.  They're both natural born citizens.  They're both over 35.  They've both been in the country over 14 years.  Those are the only qualifications required.

 

[Henry Ford]

They both backtracked.  It was a silly spat to begin with.  They're both natural born citizens.  They're both over 35.  They've both been in the country over 14 years.  Those are the only qualifications required.

Wait, does that mean Trump is qualified to be President?

 

[skol asylum]

Wait, does that mean Trump is qualified to be President?

Nope. Not natural born. Born in a pod like Cruz.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So you would expect for him to ask and for her to give names of people investigated that were never publicized? Like that wouldn't open up a can of worms for each person named?

I swear, the Hillaryites can sound like Richard Nixon flunkies on this.

IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION. Yes, if PUBLIC employees are investigated by PUBLIC entities about OFFICIAL acts, then YES, that information is PUBLIC.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Wait, does that mean Trump is qualified to be President?

Sure.  I don't think there's any resume that "qualifies" you to be President.  I imagine some real estate impresarios may be excellent Presidents and some 2 term Governors and 3 term Senators would be lousy Presidents.  It's a sui generis position.  No combination of experience can really prepare you for the role.

I think Trump would be a lousy President.  I also think Cruz would be a lousy President, even if his resume fits the bill.  It's not a matter of qualifications.

 

[squistion]

I swear, the Hillaryites can sound like Richard Nixon flunkies on this.

IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION. Yes, if PUBLIC employees are investigated by PUBLIC entities about OFFICIAL acts, then YES, that information is PUBLIC.

So every investigation the FBI is making is disclosed to the public? Even if it leads nowhere and no charges are ever brought?

 

[Henry Ford]

Sure.  I don't think there's any resume that "qualifies" you to be President.  I imagine some real estate impresarios may be excellent Presidents and some 2 term Governors and 3 term Senators would be lousy Presidents.  It's a sui generis position.  No combination of experience can really prepare you for the role.

I think Trump would be a lousy President.  I also think Cruz would be a lousy President, even if his resume fits the bill.  It's not a matter of qualifications.

Maybe the term "qualified" has multiple meanings?  "Possessing the minimum requirements under the Constitution" and "trained or prepared to perform a job or function" might be two different ways of using "qualified" here. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So every investigation the FBI is making is disclosed to the public? Even if it leads nowhere and no charges are ever brought?

A public employee who is investigated for security breach? Yes, it should be public. If the FBI does not tell the people that's one thing, they don't have to post it on their website, but it would definitely IMO be subject to Foia if people caught wind of it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Maybe the term "qualified" has multiple meanings?  "Possessing the minimum requirements under the Constitution" and "trained or prepared to perform a job or function" might be two different ways of using "qualified" here. 

I completely understand that (although I think its telling that the Framers didn't think any particularly training or preparation was necessary to do the job).  And I'm saying that there is no set of experiences that "trains or prepares" you for the job of:

1) Being the chief executive of the second largest representative democracy in the world (and the largest non-parliamentary one, which significantly impacts anyone's ability to enact an executive agenda):

2) Being the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military in the world;

3) Being responsible for either the largest of second largest economy in the world depending on what metric you prefer

4) Being the most famous and recognizable political figure in the world.

 

[squistion]

A public employee who is investigated for security breach? Yes, it should be public. If the FBI does not tell the people that's one thing, they don't have to post it on their website, but it would definitely IMO be subject to Foia if people caught wind of it.

So you admit that it does not always become public as you previously claimed. Thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So you admit that it does not always become public as you previously claimed. Thanks.

Different issue. I suggested Lauer ask Hillary for one example. That is very much public information and she has no right to withhold it, unlike her transcripts which are private. Now the FBI or IC might object on the basis of concerns of an ongoing ***criminal*** investigation such as re: ***spying justifying secrecy but that would be up to Hillary if she wants to be that frank.

 

[Henry Ford]

I completely understand that (although I think its telling that the Framers didn't think any particularly training or preparation was necessary to do the job).  And I'm saying that there is no set of experiences that "trains or prepares" you for the job of:

1) Being the chief executive of the second largest representative democracy in the world (and the largest non-parliamentary one, which significantly impacts anyone's ability to enact an executive agenda):

2) Being the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military in the world;

3) Being responsible for either the largest of second largest economy in the world depending on what metric you prefer

4) Being the most famous and recognizable political figure in the world.

Fair perspective.  I don't think there's anything that makes one unquestionably ready to handle every nuance of the job, but I think that some experiences do add significant enough preparation and training toward the job to make one more qualified than others to take it on.

 

[skol asylum]

I completely understand that (although I think its telling that the Framers didn't think any particularly training or preparation was necessary to do the job).  And I'm saying that there is no set of experiences that "trains or prepares" you for the job of:

1) Being the chief executive of the second largest representative democracy in the world (and the largest non-parliamentary one, which significantly impacts anyone's ability to enact an executive agenda):

2) Being the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military in the world;

3) Being responsible for either the largest of second largest economy in the world depending on what metric you prefer

4) Being the most famous and recognizable political figure in the world.

I don't think we can look to the framers here because none of what you listed was true in the late 1700s.

 

[pettifogger]

AP Poll says 55% dislike Clinton.  Last I heard 40% of the country are Republicans.

...but no one should feel she was forced on us.  No one.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-gfk-poll-dislike-clinton-disdain-trump-38254423

Edit:. Yes, Trump is 69% unfavorable.  So in our "representative" government, both front runners are not who the People would have chosen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup%27s_most_admired_man_and_woman_poll

If you want to pick a poll, Gallup runs a poll on the most admired man and woman in America every year.  Hillary knocked Mother Teresa out of top spot in 1997 and has won every single year since, except 2002 when Laura Bush pulled off an upset.  Even the U Conn women cannot match Hillary's record.  

i have no doubt, though, that 25 years of critical scrutiny from a large segment of the political press can run up significant unfavorables.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup%27s_most_admired_man_and_woman_poll

If you want to pick a poll, Gallup runs a poll on the most admired man and woman in America every year.  Hillary knocked Mother Teresa out of top spot in 1997 and has won every single year since, except 2002 when Laura Bush pulled off an upset.  Even the U Conn women cannot match Hillary's record.  

i have no doubt, though, that 25 years of critical scrutiny from a large segment of the political press can run up significant unfavorables.  

This just indicates that there is a very small segment of the population (15% or so, generously) that really likes Hillary and has her at the top of their mind when asked about what people they admire.  That in no way refutes the fact that more people view her unfavorably than favorably. 

 

[pettifogger]

BTW on the issue of the Iraq War vote being a disqualifying vote, I can respect someone adopting that view, I know many people have done so, although I think it did not mean going in and kicking over the hornet's nest with an "operation install democracy" understaffed plan the way GWB did -- he could have just as easily invaded, deposed Saddam, appointed a Baathist general to say you are in charge now, we are leaving inspectors behind to monitor your weapons program, our work is done here.  

To me, Sanders' vote joining the Tea Party types to vote against TARP (one of Cruz' main targets too) is the most disqualifying vote (if I believed in such a thing; of course I would vote for Sanders over any R if he got the nomination).  Our economy was shrinking by 8-9% on an annualized basis, bleeding jobs, and credit markets frozen -- Bush and Paulsen did what had to be done, but to the ideologues at either end of the spectrum, we can't do anything that incidentally would help the banks in order to save the economy.  As Clinton pointed out, without TARP there would be no auto bailout.  Sen. Sanders called that a lie, saying he supported the auto bailout, but the point is that the platform for it would not have existed.  .  

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/10/the-senate-bailout-vote-014196 

 

[Henry Ford]

BTW on the issue of the Iraq War vote being a disqualifying vote, I can respect someone adopting that view, I know many people have done so, although I think it did not mean going in and kicking over the hornet's nest with an "operation install democracy" understaffed plan the way GWB did -- he could have just as easily invaded, deposed Saddam, appointed a Baathist general to say you are in charge now, we are leaving inspectors behind to monitor your weapons program, our work is done here.  

To me, Sanders' vote joining the Tea Party types to vote against TARP (one of Cruz' main targets too) is the most disqualifying vote (if I believed in such a thing; of course I would vote for Sanders over any R if he got the nomination).  Our economy was shrinking by 8-9% on an annualized basis, bleeding jobs, and credit markets frozen -- Bush and Paulsen did what had to be done, but to the ideologues at either end of the spectrum, we can't do anything that incidentally would help the banks in order to save the economy.  As Clinton pointed out, without TARP there would be no auto bailout.  Sen. Sanders called that a lie, saying he supported the auto bailout, but the point is that the platform for it would not have existed.  .  

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/10/the-senate-bailout-vote-014196 

My problem - and my understanding of at least one of Sanders' problems - with TARP was the lack of proper accountability and use requirements for the funds provided in the bill.  The banks, by and large, did not use these funds to increase lending to consumers, which was the intended purpose, but rather for further acquisitions and speculation.  Which was what many opponents of the bill assumed they would do without the kind of legislative mandates many were proposing.

Unquestionably, TARP had successes, though, and I certainly can see your point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good stuff, I just want to point out again how we are talking about qualifications to be president. Which we were told at the beginning were silly arguments. Yes both are qualified, yes you can say a candidate is more qualified than another because of accomplishments, legislative work, character and ideology. And yeah you can say people can be disqualified ie they should not be president because of one or more of those specific qualities. It's ok for Hillary to say Sanders shouldn't be president because of the Tarp vote or his bank or tax policy, fine but be prepared for Sanders to do the same. IMO this is where all election debates belong.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

Man accused of hacking Bush accounts appears in US court


ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Romanian hacker known as Guccifer, who is charged with breaking into computer accounts of the Bush family, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and others, has been brought to the United States to face criminal charges.

Marcel Lazar, 44, of Arad, Romania, made an initial appearance Friday in federal court in Alexandria. He’s been charged with wire fraud, cyberstalking, identity theft, unauthorized access to computers and obstruction of justice. The charges carry prison terms ranging from five to 20 years.

...Guccifer also claimed credit for hacking the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a confidant of Hillary Clinton, in March 2013. That subsequent leak of Blumenthal’s emails was the first time that outsiders became aware of Clinton’s private “clintonemail.com” address, which she used to communicate with Blumenthal. It has now become part of the investigation of whether Clinton mishandled sensitive emails. Blumenthal appears to be described in the indictment as Victim 5, “a journalist and former presidential advisor” whose account was hacked in March 2013.

Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, whose office is prosecuting the case, said in a press release Friday that “Lazar violated the privacy of his victims and thought he could hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. No matter where they are in the world, those who commit crimes against U.S. citizens will be held accountable.”

Justice Department officials said Lazar’s arrest is one of several recent prosecutions of high-profile cyber criminals. In the Alexandria courthouse, prosecutors have indicted Ardit Ferizi, a national of Kosovo who was arrested in Malaysia and brought to the U.S. for trial for allegedly hacking and providing names and addresses of U.S. servicemembers to the Islamic State.  ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/man-accused-of-hacking-bush-accounts-appears-in-us-court/2016/04/01/b3dd7ed4-f83b-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_story.html?postshare=8941459604093235&tid=ss_tw-bottom

- 5 crimes X up to 20 years per crime = Lazar is facing 100 years.

- It's apparent that this - a criminal investigation - is a part of the Hillary investigation.

- Blumenthal's emails are directly at issue.

- The example that DOJ gives of another recent hacker extradition is that of someone who hacked military information.

 

[timschochet]

It's a security review. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's a security review. 

In which secure data if found to have been handled in an unsecure fashion would be a crime. Yes.

 

[Guest]

 


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/man-accused-of-hacking-bush-accounts-appears-in-us-court/2016/04/01/b3dd7ed4-f83b-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_story.html?postshare=8941459604093235&tid=ss_tw-bottom

- 5 crimes X up to 20 years per crime = Lazar is facing 100 years.

- It's apparent that this - a criminal investigation - is a part of the Hillary investigation.

- Blumenthal's emails are directly at issue.

- The example that DOJ gives of another recent hacker extradition is that of someone who hacked military information.

Granted, it may have little to do with Hillary.  I think Bluemthal is severely ####ed.

 

[Guest]

It's a security review. 

So there is now officially one person who believes this: you (of you aren't just being instant).  Hillary and staff even know this is wishful thinking.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Granted, it may have little to do with Hillary.  I think Bluemthal is severely ####ed.

Yeah, he's feelin' it today.

It's one degree of separation. I mean this stuff is close. It's kind of like whether the feds have Hillary's deleted stash. If they have it, then that's a big difference. If Lazar does indeed have Hillary's emails and he was reading them in real time while having his Cheerios, and then posting it up on the web, like he claimed, and he's doing all this while using a Russian server (which apparently has been established). then that's a massive difference in Hillary's case.

And he's coming in just when the FBI is supposedly teeing up interviews?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I completely understand that (although I think its telling that the Framers didn't think any particularly training or preparation was necessary to do the job).  And I'm saying that there is no set of experiences that "trains or prepares" you for the job of:

1) Being the chief executive of the second largest representative democracy in the world (and the largest non-parliamentary one, which significantly impacts anyone's ability to enact an executive agenda):

2) Being the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military in the world;

3) Being responsible for either the largest of second largest economy in the world depending on what metric you prefer

4) Being the most famous and recognizable political figure in the world.

Although 5 of the first 8 Presidents served as Secretary of State previously, right?  All but Washington, Adams, and Jackson.